Seeing the original post, i can't help but feel that its incomplete! You put forward a proposition that atheists with their, what you call, "rational" thought contradict each other at times, and put down some arguments you say you have seen atheists make! And even though I do agree with the people who pointed out that you put them out of context and hence, right there, fail to make a point, I'm gonna play along and go with it! Ok so, lets, just for a moment, accept that what you say holds any kind of water, again, it doesn't but I'll play along! What is your end point? That because some atheists contradict some others, it means that God exists? How is that logic in any form? Also, you forget that there is no church of Atheism where we all get together and write a holy book and we live, die and argue according to it! The ONLY thing that really all atheists have in common, is the fact that they don't believe in the existence of a God. How we got to that conclusion, why and why not, you will find a million different answers to all of these questions, because that is the beauty of not having an imaginary friend or daddy, dictating to you what you should or shouldn't do, say or shouldn't say and so on! Also, you say that atheists contradict themselves, well, look at the so called holy books! There are loads and loads of contradictions! So why do you believe them?
Bottom line, the arguments you presented are not only weak, they are not even making the point you are trying to make, exactly because you use arguments out of context! But even with the logic you are using, and without changing anything in that logic, you yourself are being hypocritical by trying to render something invalid, claiming contradiction between arguments made by supporters of this something, and yet on the other hand, you accept and, obviously blindly, believe something else, who's supporters and official books, are also found to be contradicting themselves!
Bottom line, the arguments you presented are not only weak, they are not even making the point you are trying to make, exactly because you use arguments out of context! But even with the logic you are using, and without changing anything in that logic, you yourself are being hypocritical by trying to render something invalid, claiming contradiction between arguments made by supporters of this something, and yet on the other hand, you accept and, obviously blindly, believe something else, who's supporters and official books, are also found to be contradicting themselves!
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in, some of us just go one god further..." Richard Dawkins
"If the world does come to an end here, or wherever, or if it limps into the future, decimated by the effects of religion-inspired nuclear terrorism, let's remember what the real problem was that we learned how to precipitate mass death before we got past the neurological disorder of wishing for it." Bill Maher
"If the world does come to an end here, or wherever, or if it limps into the future, decimated by the effects of religion-inspired nuclear terrorism, let's remember what the real problem was that we learned how to precipitate mass death before we got past the neurological disorder of wishing for it." Bill Maher
